I attended the majority of the public stakeholder meetings identified in the Department’s Community Planning Process (CPP) in the Draft Integrated Plan, including the BHSA Steering Committee, the Community Planning Program Workgroup, the Behavioral Health Board, Countywide Town Halls, and the dedicated Housing Workgroup. What I witnessed was a repetitive series of presentations from Department staff and consultants focusing on the the transition of MHSA funding requirements to those contained in the BHSA Behavioral Health Transformation. Questions from participants concentrated on how current programs initiated under the last three-year MHSA Integrated Plan could be continued despite a shift of 30% of the funding to “Housing”, and the transfer of popular innovation grant authority to the State.
Rarely in the process did staff address what they alluded to as the “other 90%” of the Plan program funding, now for the first time mandated to be included. When they did, it was to complain about the fact that the Department’ Fiscal Team had not provided them with any guidance on the Departmental finances required to be within the Plan. After the first four presentations of the same PowerPoint, I perceived that most committee members stopped asking questions, and some community members stopped attending. As the only member from the Behavioral Health Board at these meetings, I began to detect that an enormous information and participation gap growing between the BOS-Appointed Behavioral Health Board and the Department-selected Behavioral Health Steering Committee. The latter consisted on Department staff, consultants, and contractors. Almost all seemed to be vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest, and seldom asked any but superficial questions.
When I attempted to record the meetings using an advanced digital personal assistant device (Fieldy) to document the stakeholder input, staff objected, and forced me to stop. I do not believe that staff finds value in allowing transparency in their work. The lack of timely minutes, advance meeting presentation materials, and the reluctance by staff to utilize online Plan Comment tools, has severely restricted public engagement and review.
The questions I asked were almost entirely ignored, and usually viewed as hostile, especially when I inquired when reports from the BH Steering Committee would be shared with the Behavioral Health Board. Were I to have been allowed to continue on the Board, I would have requested that full reports and recommendations from these meetings be forwarded to the Behavioral Health Board’s Integrated Plan Subcommittee for their report to the full Behavioral Health Board by the beginning of the formal public Open Comment hearing at their May meeting.
The Department’s Plan submission details the many meetings it hosted in compliance with the State’s stakeholder involvement requirements. But effective Plan development and engagement is not conducting meetings of your own staff, contractors, and consultants to review your latest interpretation of evolving State requirements. I saw almost no changes to the presentations, to the proposed Plan design, and finally to the Draft Plan, in the six months from September of 2025 to February of 2026. My attempts at providing insight on Integrated Plan processes being discussed at other neighboring county Behavioral Health Board meetings, California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commission board meetings, and State Behavioral Health Commission meetings I was attending were dismissed. It was no surprise to me when Departmental staff asked me not to continue my attendance on the Behavioral Health Steering Committee because “We believe your intentions are not consistent with ours”.
Within the Draft Integrated Plan is a paragraph which illustrates the failure of open engagement. It indicates that the planning process gathered important insights into the operation of homeless facilities and services in the county.
“At the recommendation of the Steering Committee, SCBH conducted Housing
Focus Groups in August and September 2025 with individuals who had lived
experience of homelessness and behavioral health challenges. Participants
identified safety concerns, lack of privacy in shelters, inconsistent rule
enforcement, barriers to consistent case management, and insufficient supports
for individuals with serious mental illness. They recommended trauma-informed
housing environments, enhanced onsite clinical and peer services, expanded
outreach teams, and practical supports such as dog kennels to support
employment access. Participants also identified transportation, digital access,
and documentation barriers, recommending monthly bus passes, free internet
access at service sites, and assistance obtaining identification, Medi-Cal, and
mobile phones. These insights directly shaped priorities for integrated housing
and behavioral health service models, expanded case management, strengthened
peer workforce roles, and improved transportation and digital access supports.”
None of this information was shared with the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, the County’s Continuum of Care Governing body, nor was there any attempt to validate or utilize the feedback to engage the largest single set of targeted stakeholders/consumers.
Nevertheless, the Department’s stakeholder process did confirm the Department’s belief that previous investments using innovation projects have found deep support within the community. Almost all of the priorities identified in the concluding paragraphs of the Plan’s Community Planning Process Stakeholder Engagement originated in early memberships and comments a year ago. It’s too bad no real work was done in the interim to actually engage participants in turning those ideas into collaborative projects.
“Across all engagement activities, stakeholders consistently emphasized the value
of culturally grounded and lived-experience perspectives. Community members
called for strengthening the SCBH Latinx Clinic, expanding culturally rooted early
intervention programs, investing in peer-led wellness centers, and hiring staff
with lived experience. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of traumainformed, disability-sensitive approaches and the need to evaluate both evidence-based and community-created practices. There was strong support for improving data systems, integrating quantitative and qualitative measures, and ensuring outcomes reflect community-defined success.”
“Through this extensive and collaborative planning process, the FY 2026–2029
BHSA Integrated Plan reflects the priorities identified by Sonoma County’s
diverse communities. These include expanding housing-linked behavioral health
supports; strengthening crisis response and early intervention services;
investing in culturally grounded and peer-led models; improving real-time data
and response systems; and enhancing transparency and communication. Input
gathered through meetings, focus groups, surveys, and listening sessions
directly informed the Plan’s strategies, and SCBH remains committed to
continued stakeholder engagement throughout implementation.”
Homeless Emergency Assistance Program Association 